Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202005633)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005633

Notting Hill Genesis

28 June 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced in June 2020. The property is a two bedroom flat which is situated across the basement and ground floor in a terraced property. The property has undergone some adaptations to meet the resident’s son’s needs. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the landlord is aware that the resident and her son have the following vulnerabilities:
1. The resident’s son has autism, mobility issues and sensory processing disorder. He also suffers with anxiety and asthma.
2. The resident has bursitis and tendonitis of the shoulder, plantar fasciitis of the foot, carpel tunnel syndrome, anxiety and depression and has asthma.
The landlord has a responsibility under housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords which include:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that emergency repairs will be carried out within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 days. The landlord is responsible for the structure of the home including the roof, outside walls, windows and windowsills. The landlord is also responsible for inside walls, floors and ceilings.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says:
1. If a minor repair such as a damp and mould wash is needed, it will arrange for works to take place. It will contact the resident to ensure they have been completed and the issue has been resolved.
2. For more severe cases, a follow-up inspection by a surveyor will be arranged within 10 days of the first inspection. Remediation works will be prioritised according to the severity of the risk the damp or mould poses. Where a risk to the health and safety of the household is identified, works will be arranged immediately.
3. Where major works are required, households will be considered for a temporary decant.
The landlord’s decant policy says:
1. It aims to carry out improvement works and major repairs whilst the resident remains in their home. It will decide on a case by case basis whether it is reasonable to ask the resident to remain in their home or be decanted.
2. When making a decision it will consider residents health, safety and wellbeing, any vulnerabilities and moving arrangements before proceeding with the decant process.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. A complaint will be acknowledged at stage 1 within 2 working days. Complaints will be investigated within 10 working days. Stage two complaints will be investigated within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines when compensation will be considered:
1. Compensation. A financial payment to make amends or recognise distress or inconvenience caused as a result of service failure.
2. Goodwill gesture. A discretionary financial or other gesture given to recognise a shortcoming in the way it has delivered a service.
3. Decant. When a resident is moved from their principal home into alternative accommodation due to planned major works, an emergency or because of the demolition or sale of a property.
4. Where a resident experiences distress of inconvenience following a service failure it can make a discretionary payment up to £250.

Summary of events

The resident advised this Service that she contacted the landlord to report damp and mould in her home shortly after moving in June 2020. She reported that there was a problem with the back door and damp problems in the basement. She said that the landlord asked her to send photographs and advised that someone from the maintenance department would contact her.
On 1 July 2020 a new back door was fitted. The resident said that she had immediate concerns about the poor finish of the door and visible gap around the door panel. On 3 July 2020 the resident said that she reported the issues to the landlord and sent photographs.
On 6 July 2020 the resident said she received a text message from the door contractor who said that it had fitted the door without adequate silicone sealant. The contractor said it would be reattending, to finish the job, on 8 July 2020. The contractor messaged the resident on 8 July 2020 and said it would not be attending due to the rain as the sealant would not stick. A new appointment was made for 10 July 2020. The resident said that the contractor did not attend the appointment or contact her to inform her that it would not be attending.
The resident said that the landlord’s surveyor inspected the damp and ill fitting back door on 13 July 2020. She said that the surveyor took photographs and said he would “be in touch.”
On 19 July 2020 the resident contacted the landlord about the issues in the property. She reported the door masonry falling when she opened the door and confirmed that she would not use the back door until it was fixed.
On 21 July 2020 the landlord arranged for a damp inspection. Photographs were taken and notes of the condition of the back door and basement. The coal shoot was not watertight and issues combined with the roof were causing damp problems. The resident said that she was assured the landlord would address the issues.
The resident told this Service that she contacted her own independent double glazing specialist. On 22 July 2020 the contractor completed a survey of the back door. The resident said that the survey had identified multiple issues:
1. The door had been measured incorrectly and was too small leading to an exposed area around the frame.
2. The door had been fitted without any base and was damaged during installation.
3. The screw holes had not been done correctly or had been drilled too deep leaving exposed nails in the frame.
4. The door would not close properly due to poor installation. The resident said that the contractor recommended a new door.
5. The resident said that she had sent the report to the landlord.
On 19 August 2020 the resident said that she contacted the landlord as she had received no response or update following the damp inspection the previous month. She said that her personal items were being affected by mould. Her son was developing a phobia as there was mould on his school bag and teddy bear. On 24 August 2020 the resident contacted the landlord as she had still received no response. The landlord responded and said that it would email the assets team for an update on the damp issue. The resident said that she received a response on 27 August 2020 to say that the case was “on the radar”.
The resident said that she chased the landlord again on 8 September 2020 and 10 September 2020. On 11 September 2020 the landlord said it would chase for an update and advised the resident to contact her housing officer for future updates. On 20 September 2020 the resident emailed the landlord again for an update.
On 21 September 2020 the landlord responded and said that the original door contractor would return and make good the door and that it had instructed the roof contractor to repair the flat roof. The landlord said the resident would be contacted with more information. The resident expressed concern with the original contractor returning as they did not appear to be experienced in door fitting. Numerous contractors had assessed the door, including the resident’s contractor, who had all agreed that the door was incorrectly measured and fitted. The resident said that the landlord’s own surveyor had agreed that the door needed to be replaced.
On 2 October 2020 a further damp inspection was carried out by a different contractor. The resident said that the contractor had told her that there was rising damp in the basement of the flat, that the flat roof was leaking, and the back door was not watertight. The resident said that the contractor also told her that there were missing bricks and air vents that needed blocking up in the coal shoot. She said that the contractor felt this was all contributing to the damp issues. The contractor told the resident that he would write a report and send it to the landlord.
On 12 October 2020 the landlord’s contractor attended to inspect the flat roof. The contractor took measurements and photographs and said it would “be in touch.”
On 25 October 2020 the resident contacted this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her repairs. This Service wrote to the landlord on 25 October 2020 and asked for the resident’s complaint to be raised. On 27 October 2020 the landlord responded to this Service to advise it had no complaints logged for the resident and that it would contact the housing team to raise the complaint.
The resident told this Service that damp work was due to start on 7 December 2020, but the appointment was cancelled. On 16 December 2020 damp works started. The resident said that the landlord had asked the contractor to “blackjack” one side of the basement wall, adjacent to the bathroom and add flood guards to the air vents. The resident said that the contractor had received no instruction to blackjack the other side near the coal shoot. The resident said that the contractor had told her that there would still be issues as the landlord had only asked for one wall to be done. On 17 December 2020 the damp works continued but were not completed. The resident said that the contractor advised her that it would return.
On 6 January 2021 the damp repairs appointment was cancelled by the contractor and re-arranged for 28 January 2021. On 28 January 2021 the contractor cancelled the appointment and it was rearranged for 29 January 2021. On 29 January 2021 the contractor cancelled the appointment and it was rearranged for 11 March 2021. The resident said that she had advised the landlord that water was still coming in when it rained and there were new damp patches in the basement outside the bathroom.
On 17 February 2021 the resident said that she sent an email to her housing officer about the unresolved issues. She explained that she had a vulnerable child. The back door had dropped leaving gaps and the roof was rotten. There were cracks appearing and she would send photographs. On 18 February 2021 the officer responded to say it would look into this and get back to the resident.
On 11 March 2021 the landlord’s contractor again inspected the basement. The resident said that the contractor took photographs of the coal shoot which was wet. The resident said that the contractor told her that the walls in the basement area were getting worse and not to use the light switch as there was a wet patch which now encroached onto the light switch.
This Service wrote to the landlord again on 25 March 2021 as the resident’s complaint has not been registered or responded to.
On 12 April 2021 the resident said that she chased the contractor about completing the work to fit flood guards. On 16 April 2021 the resident chased again for an update on the repairs and a date was arranged for 23 April 2021. On 23 April 2021 the contractor returned and fitted flood guards on the air vents to the coal shoot. The resident said that she showed the contractor the new damp patches. She said that the contractor said that damp would re-appear as the landlord had only recommended blackjacking one wall which would not solve the problem.
On 19 April 2021 this Service wrote again to the landlord to ask for the resident’s complaint to be addressed.
On 27 April 2021 the resident said that a new contractor attended to fix and adjust the gap around the back door. She said that the door had dropped significantly since it was installed and the area around the door had damp and mould. The issue was worse due to the flat roof needing to be repaired and water coming in. The resident said that the contractor advised her that it was a temporary repair and the door needed to be replaced. It also said that the surrounding brickwork inside and out had been damaged during installation.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 26 April 2021. It said:
1. It was sorry that the resident was dissatisfied with its service.
2. It summarised her complaint as:
  1. A badly fitted door.
  2. Rotten window.
  3. Garden fence height.
  4. Mould.
  5. Customer service.
3. It said a new door was fitted on 1 July 2020. It had tried to arrange a follow up appointment for the same contractor to return to make good the works however the resident had refused access to the contractor. This had added to the delay in restoring the door. The long term solution was to renew the door given that all properties were on its planned maintenance programme for 2020. In the meantime, it would arrange for repairs to ensure the door was secure and weather tight.
4. The property was in a conservation area, so it was exploring options to address the rotten windows. The options being discussed were for secondary glazing or the insulation of double glazing panels into the existing frames.
5. Fence repairs were normally the resident’s responsibility, however it agreed to make good the existing fencing. It asked the resident to confirm if she wished for a repair to be raised. The landlord said that the resident was requesting an improvement to the fencing and it advised her that she would need to provide evidence of why it was needed. It recommended that the resident contact an occupational therapist who could make a recommendation for any improvement works.
6. The landlord had ordered a mould wash to address any mould on any surfaces at the property. If the mould had been caused by the draft coming from the door, once the door was made weather tight this would be resolved.
7. It apologised that the resident felt that it had not taken her son’s disability into account whilst dealing with the complaint. It acknowledged that the resident wanted the fence replaced due to her son’s disability and again advised the resident to contact an occupational therapist.
8. Having considered the case it acknowledged that there had been poor communication, below standard workmanship and customer service. Due to this it was putting steps in place to ensure this did not happen again. This included liaising with all officers and contractors at an earlier stage to ensure it managed any risks before they occurred. It was also ensuring that it logged and responded to all complaints within 10 days.
9. It acknowledged that the contractors should have provided the resident with a correctly fitting door at the first appointment and for this reason it offered a discretionary compensation payment of £250. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience the experience had caused.
On 5 May 2021 the resident said that she emailed the landlord and said that the back door had been adjusted but the gap was still present. She said that a contractor visited, took photographs and said it would report back to the landlord. It said that there was damp and mould present. She asked when the new back door would be fitted and for an update on what works would be done to resolve the damp issues. The resident accepted the £250 compensation offer.
On 11 May 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to say that the damp and mould issue was due to the roof and that planned works would be starting in the street which would include the roof.
The resident told this Service that on 12 May 2021 the contractor arrived to refit the door. The resident was told that the appointment would be to install a new door as the contractor had called the previous month to say that the door had been ordered and arrived. An appointment had been made for 22 April 2021 to replace the door but was cancelled on 21 April 2021. It had been rebooked for 6 May 2021 and further cancelled and rearranged for 12 May 2021. The contractor’s operative was under the impression that he would be making good the door. The resident said that she contacted the contractor who said that the landlord had asked it to make good the door and not replace it. The resident said she asked the contractor why it had previously called and said the door had arrived and the contractor apologised.
On 29 June 2021 a further visit was made by a different damp contractor. The same day the landlord visited. The resident explained all the difficulties caused by the back door and damp and mould. The resident said she showed the landlord her personal items and furniture which had been affected by mould. She said this was having an impact on her family and day to day living. Further photographs were taken and the landlord said it would ask the maintenance department for an update. On 1 July 2021 the resident had a further visit from the landlord and said she was able to show the progression of the mould and damp in the basement.
On 7 July 2021 the resident said she received an email from the landlord to say the damp job had been completed. She contacted the landlord to dispute this. The landlord responded to say that the job was marked completed as the contractor visited and was paid for their initial visit. The job was cancelled by accident as maintenance had thought it was the basement repairs.
On 6 September 2021 the landlord again visited the resident and took photographs and notes of the repairs. The resident said that she explained her concerns about the impact the mould might be having on her family’s health as they were asthmatic. She also said that her son’s condition meant he was very sensory led and the problems were preventing her from putting carpets down. The carpet was important to a neurodivergent child. The landlord said that it would write a report and get back to the resident. It said it now had authority to get the flat roof repaired and this would be arranged.
On 9 September 2021 the roof contractor contacted the resident to say it had been instructed to inspect the flat roof. An appointment was made for 12 September 2021. The contractor attended and took photographs and measurements and said it would be in touch with a date to complete the repairs.
On 21 October 2022 a contractor attended to look at the back door and took photographs and measurements.
On 11 November 2021 the roof contractor attended and completed the repairs. The resident contacted the landlord to confirm that the repair had been completed and asked for an update on the damp downstairs. The landlord responded on 17 November 2021 to say that this would be assigned to a damp specialist.
On 23 November 2021 the landlord visited the property. Photographs were taken and the resident was asked how she would feel about a “total decant.” The resident said she was keen to get the repairs done but if the landlord was unable to deal with the problem, she would be open to move to a suitable property. The landlord said that the previous damp contractor who attended would not be completing the work and that it intended to use another contractor to deal with the problem. The resident said that she expressed her disappointment with the length of time it had taken to address the issues. That different contractors had visited for assessments and to take measurements and photographs but had not completed any work.
On 25 November 2021 the landlord confirmed that it wanted a new damp specialist to inspect the property. On 26 November 2021 the resident said that she told the landlord that she had lost her carpet deposit and needed a start date for the completion of the damp works. She said that she had expressed her anger at how long it was taking to deal with the issues and that due to the delays the issues had got worse. She said what had started as a small black spot was now a completely wet wall which was affecting the skirting boards and electrics. The landlord advised the resident of who the new contractor would be and that it had made an appointment for 30 November 2021. The resident said that the contractor did not arrive on the appointed date.
On 6 December 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She provided photographs which showed the deterioration of the property. She did not believe that the landlord had done enough to resolve the outstanding issues and outlined her concerns as:
1. Of the five issues she had raised in her complaint only two had been resolved which were the garden fence and flat roof.
2. The damage left from the leaking roof had resulted in damp and mould in the room below with rotten woodwork and water damage.
3. The UPVC door fitted in July 2020 was still in situ and had dropped again leaving a large gap. The door was adjusted on 27 April 2021 which was a temporary solution. She had been advised by the contractor that the door would eventually drop again. The door had dropped and a large gap had appeared. The whole area was damp with mould patches, rotten woodwork, skirting and a constant draft coming through the gap.
4. There was a large crack running along the top of the door frame which had started as a hairline crack. This had deteriorated and extended so much that it had exposed the brickwork. The plaster and woodwork above the door “crumpled” when touched.
5. The damp and mould outside the bathroom in the basement had been assessed and reviewed by many different contractors. Surveyors had visited and reports had been written, photographs taken, and quotes submitted to the landlord, but nothing had ever been treated. The damp and mould had started as a small area of approximately 10cm which was now over 6ft.
6. The cupboard used to store linen smelt of damp and everything in it had been ruined and thrown away due to mould. The whole flat smelt of damp including clothes. The smell was worse in the basement area.
7. She had purchased a large dehumidifier in the hope of removing the dampness in the basement, but this just created large energy bills.
8. During a home visit on the 9 September 2021 the surveyor confirmed that the bathroom wall was wet. This was also confirmed by previous contractors.
9. The constant delays had caused more damage to personal belongings. She was concerned about her and her son’s health which she highlighted during a visit on 23 November 2021. Both she and her son were asthmatic.
10. She had hoped to put carpets in but feared they would be ruined, 20 months after moving in.
11. She had had over 10 different contractors and surveyors attend the property to carry out assessments, reports, and take photographs but still one year later she was in the same situation. Her health was being put at risk and she and her son both used inhalers daily. She had explained in detail how this was affecting her personally. The landlord had visited multiple times and seen that she had been unable to carpet the property in the basement due to the ongoing issues. This was important as the landlord was aware that her son was autistic and was extremely sensory led. She said she had been extremely patient regarding the issues and was hopeful that she would be able to carpet the property for Christmas having been there for 20 months but felt this was unlikely to happen.
12. The landlord had advised that a further specialist would be attending on 30 November 2021, but he had not contacted her directly as promised or attended.
On 7 December 2021 the resident said she received a call from a new contractor who said that they had been asked to carry out a survey. It said they could not offer any appointments until March 2022. The resident said she was unhappy with this and asked for the landlord to contact her.
On 7 January 2022 the resident said she received a phone call from the landlord. The resident said that she had not received a response to her request to raise her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 14 January 2022. It had a telephone conversation with the resident on 17 January 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident confirming its telephone conversation on 18 January 2022 and outlined the resident’s complaint as:
1. Resolution to the damp and mould caused by water damage from the previously leaking roof, replacement of rotten woodwork and skirting. This was the room directly under the flat roof. Also, the cupboard in this room was affected.
2. Issues with the UPVC door to be resolved so that the large gap did not reappear, and the door was secure and weatherproof.
3. Resolution to the damp and mould outside the bathroom in the basement and in the coal shoot.
4. Request for compensation for damage of personal items caused by mould and damp in the basement.
5. The landlord said the resident had asked for an update on the cyclical works taking place regarding the main roof as well as leaking guttering and plasterwork on the external wall. It confirmed that the work was originally confirmed to commence that financial year however, due to section 20 notifications the works had been deferred to the 2022 to 2023 financial year which commenced after 1 April 2022.
6. Regarding the leaking guttering, it asked the housing officer to contact her to book a repair in to resolve this. The officer had spoken to her and the leak appeared to be due to blocked drainage. The officer had asked the resident to provide a photograph and would raise a repair for this.
7. Regarding the external wall, it was waiting on the surveyor to confirm if it was included in the programmed works and would come back to her shortly.
8. She had stated that she would now be open to a decant whilst the landlord worked to resolve the issues. It would speak to the housing officer about options and come back to her.
9. She had originally asked for her complaint to be escalated on 6 December 2021. It apologised that this was not done. For it to review the complaint in detail it would need more time and therefore there would be a further delay in the resident receiving a full stage 2 response. The additional delay would be considered as part of the complaint. It aimed to send a full response by 11 February 2022.
On 19 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to clarify that she had not said she was “ok” with a decant for the works to be done. She had said that she had lost total confidence in the landlord and could see the work would take further time and that she would be open to a total decant. She was asked how she felt about moving completely and the officer had asked about a decant whilst work was being completed. On 19 January 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to say that it was in conversations with colleagues about the scope of works and to clarify how long they would take. Once it knew more it would advise on this.
On 24 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord. She said that the damp specialist had not attended her property in November 2021. She said it was a wasted day for her and there had been no explanation as to why the contractor had not turned up. She queried why another damp specialist was being sent when the property had already been seen by numerous damp contractors. They had provided reports and sent these back to the landlord, but the report and suggestions of work needed had not been actioned. She asked the landlord whether, the “10 plus” contractors who had visited over the previous two years, had not been damp specialists.
The landlord responded the same day. It said it had spoken to its internal surveyor who confirmed that it would need to arrange access for a damp specialist to attend the property to complete a survey before it could advise the resident on the length of time the works would take. It was aware that numerous contractors had attended in the past with no real resolution or follow up. It was sorry and apologised for the disruption and inconvenience this had caused. It said this was being looked into as part of the complaint. For it to move forward and resolve the outstanding issues it would need to ensure the survey went ahead. It asked the resident to confirm by the end of the week the days and times which best suited the resident, and it would arrange the visit for a date and time suitable to the resident.
On 25 January 2022 the resident responded. She said that the landlord had not answered her question as to whether the previous contractors were not damp specialists. She said that this was important as if they were not damp specialists, the landlord had wasted her time for the past 2 years with the visits. She wanted this addressed in the stage 2 response. She said she was available on 26 January 2022 and 28 January 2022 at 9:30 am and before 2:30 pm.
Between 26 January 2022 and 7 February 2022, the landlord provided several dates for a specialist to visit the property to look at the damp. The resident was not available for a number of the appointments due to hospital appointments. The landlord gave four further dates, but the resident was dissatisfied with having to wait for five weeks for the assessment to take place.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 11 February 2022. The landlord said:
1. The resident’s required resolutions were:
  1. For the damp and mould issues to be resolved throughout the property.
  2. For remedial works to damage caused by the leak to be completed.
  3. For the issues with the UPVC back door to be resolved to ensure it was secure and weatherproof.
  4. For compensation to be paid for the damage to the resident’s personal belonging caused by damp and mould in the basement.
2. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 6 December 2021. It said it had taken over 5 weeks to acknowledge that it had received the request and to begin the process of escalating the complaint to the next stage. It confirmed this was a service failure that should have been picked up and responded to much sooner. It apologised for its poor complaint handling and the delay. It should have been clearer and communicated better. To acknowledge the mistakes and inconvenience it offered £250 as a gesture of good will. To ensure it improved it recommended that all staff attend complaints refresher training.
3. On 6 September 2021 the landlord had visited the property to inspect the issues the resident had reported. The landlord had said it would raise the list of repairs on the normal repairs platform. However, it then decided that these works would need to be carried out by a damp specialist. It said that it had contacted a contractor to request a damp inspection and survey at the resident’s home. On 26 November 2021 the housing officer emailed to confirm the damp specialist would visit on 30 November 2021 however there was confusion as the specialist never received the order. It apologised for the poor handling of the situation and offered £30 for the missed appointment. It said it should have communicated better internally across departments and followed up with the resident to confirm the appointment as it had said it would.
4. The landlord had now contacted an alternative damp specialist who would need to visit the property to complete the survey. This was so that the contractor could inspect the issues raised by the surveyor first hand and create a plan of works as well as an estimate for the length of time the works would take. Once the contractor had visited it would agree the best way to move forward to get the works completed with minimal disruption to the resident.
5. It was unable to confirm the date the resident initially reported the issues to the landlord however it understood that she had waited a long time for these works to be completed. It recognised there had been a service failure. In the resident’s email to this Service, which the landlord was copied into, the resident had said she was not willing to wait another 5 weeks for an appointment by the damp specialist. It appreciated that this should have progressed much further than it had however the landlord was trying to provide a date suitable to the resident to move forward.
6. It said that the contractor had contacted the resident on two occasions in December 2021 to try and book an appointment but that the resident had refused to discuss or confirm an appointment until she had spoken to the landlord. Since then, it had offered a further 6 appointments all which had been refused. It proposed to book the contractor for 6 March 2022 to provide the specification of works. This had been booked and it asked the resident to assist in allowing access on the day.
7. It had asked the housing officer and operations manager to review the case on a weekly basis. The housing officer would email each week to update the resident on progress made and next steps. It would also provide a timeline for completion of the work once the damp contractor had visited.
8. It acknowledged that its communication and follow ups after previous visits had been poor and apologised. Its action plan, as outlined above, should prevent this from reoccurring and ensure that the resident was kept updated. It would communicate regularly until the issues were resolved.
9. Regarding the UPVC door fitted in June 2020, the resident had reported that the door was fitted badly in the first place and despite adjustments by the contractors the same issues had reoccurred, namely the large gap which meant the door was not watertight. The resident had also reported the cracking around the top of the door which had deteriorated, and the brickwork was now exposed. It said that unfortunately the workmanship of the contractor to replace the door in July 2021 had not met the standard it would expect.
10. The door had dropped again and was not locking properly and there were gaps and issues with the seal. The landlord had spoken to the contractor to recall the job to remedy the issues, but the resident had said she did not want him to return. On 2 October 2021 the landlord sent a surveyor to inspect the work carried out on the door and establish what works were required so it could pass this information to an alternative contractor. The landlord acknowledged that it should have organised this visit sooner. The report confirmed that the door had been fitted poorly and would need to be recalled. The repair was handed over to the assets team to assign a contractor however this did not happen. The landlord apologised for the poor quality and handling of the repair and the inconvenience caused.
11. The landlord acknowledged its failings and apologised that it did not follow this through as it should have to ensure that the issues with the door were fixed. To resolve this, it had raised a job for a new door to be fitted by a different contractor. The works to the door would be included in the weekly update by the housing officer. The landlord offered £250 as a gesture of good will.
12. The resident had asked for compensation for damage to her personal items and had provided photographs. The resident had moved all her clothes from the bedrooms to the living room. This meant that the resident could not use the living room as intended. The landlord acknowledged that this was not good enough and that the ongoing issues with the damp and mould in the property appeared to have caused damage to her personal items. The landlord said it would not compensate the resident for this and would advise that she contacted her home insurance provider to request assistance.
13. It said that it would however like to offer compensation for the limited use of the living room. This was calculated at 20% of the daily rent and would be back dated to the beginning of October 2020 when the resident first reported the damp and mould issues to this Service. The total amount was £1886.22. It offered this as a gesture of good will and for the trouble caused to the resident.
14. The resident had raised concerns about the length of time it had taken the landlord to resolve the issues and about the multiple visits by surveyors and contractors. Work to resolve the issues had taken far too long. On multiple occasions the landlord failed to follow up with the resident and provide feedback after a visit from a contractor or surveyor. It acknowledged that it should have communicated better and explained its decisions. It said it did not do this efficiently and had failed to provide a good enough service. It acknowledged its mistakes and apologised.
15. It was unable to confirm the number of contractors that had attended the property in the past 2 years or whether they were damp specialists which the resident had requested. It said its records were not detailed enough to evidence this. It acknowledged that its record keeping had not been good enough and apologised. It said it was currently working on processes to improve its record keeping for repairs, especially where multiple departments were involved, or works were more complex.
16. It acknowledged that communication regarding the outstanding issues had been poor over a prolonged period. It appreciated this had been a source of ongoing inconvenience and upset for the resident. It offered £250 as a gesture of good will.
17. It had spoken to the building surveyor leading on cyclical works to the roof who confirmed that it had originally intended to commence in this financial year however due to section 20 notifications work had been deferred to the 2022 to 2023 financial year. The resident would receive an update to confirm a date for the start of the work.
18. The resident had confirmed that she would be open to a total decant from the property due to the issues and the impact this was having on her and her son. The landlord confirmed that a decant had been approved and the next step was to find a suitable two bedroom property. The housing officer would contact the resident on a weekly basis to discuss all the matters until resolution and this would be part of those discussions.
19. The landlord concluded that it had investigated each of the outstanding issues raised. It had provided a detailed explanation for each of the points. It said that some of the issues raised required more work before they could be resolved. Where this was the case, it had outlined its plan of action and would continue to communicate until the issues were resolved and the resident was happy with the outcome. It confirmed its offer of compensation in the amount of £2666.22.
The landlord’s complaint response dated 11 February 2022 was its final response to the resident’s complaint, confirming that the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
On 14 February 2022 the resident contacted this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaint. She said:
1. She was disappointed that she had not been compensated for the loss of personal belongings.
2. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had not considered her son’s special needs. Also, that both she and her son were asthmatic.
3. She didn’t know if she were to be offered a full decant whether any home loss payment would be made or any carpet or furnishings for a new property.
On 7 March 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord as she had been promised a weekly update from the housing officer but had not had any other than confirmation of an appointment on 16 March 2022. An appointment had been made, without her knowledge, for someone to measure the back door and this went against what had been said in the stage 2 complaint about being kept up to date on appointments. The resident said she did not agree with much of the stage 2 complaint response and wanted compensation for her personal belongings.
On 16 March 2022 the landlord’s contactor completed a survey and provided its report to the landlord on 17 March 2022. The report said:
1. The external rendered low level plinth had been carried down to the ground level, which was not of a waterproof nature and would form a bridge over any damp proof course in the wall.
2. Damage was visible to the brickwork and pointing and the landlord should arrange for this to be made good.
3. Render could hide defects and the landlord should arrange for the gaps and cracks in the render to be made good to reduce the risk of water ingress.
4. Moss and algal growth were visible to the right of the steps and it appeared that rainwater was pooling. The landlord should arrange for suitable drainage to be installed to ensure rainwater flowed away from the walls of the property.
5. Joinery timbers throughout the property needed maintenance, repair or replacement. The landlord should arrange for this to be carried out.
6. An air vent to the rear had been blocked with a flood barrier type covering, this should be reviewed and removed as it was not required to improve air flow to the coal bunker area below. The landlord should review the fall of the step to ensure rainwater did not track back and through the air vent.
7. Air vents to the front of the property were blocked and the landlord should arrange to clear these regularly to ensure a cross flow of air.
8. All gutters and downpipes, external joinery timers and roof coverings should be checked and be part of a regular maintenance schedule.
9. Door and window frames should be suitably sealed to reduce the risk of water ingress.
10. The flat roof to the rear which was previously leaking and been repaired but still appeared to be leaking at times during heavy rain. It recommended a further inspection of the roof by a reputable roofer.
11. The rear door did not close as it should and required adjustment to reduce the risk of water ingress.
12. Visual evidence indicated a problem of penetrating damp through the rear wall and door frame. Readings were taken using an electronic moisture meter. The landlord should arrange for the door frame and associated area to be made good.
13. There was no visual evidence to indicate a problem of rising or penetrating damp at the time of the inspection.
14. Mould growth caused by excessive condensation was evident in the property. The resident had reported mould growth on clothing and stored items. It had recommended for the resident to reduce the number of stored items.
15. A localised area of damp plaster was identified to the rear right of the hallway. The skirting board needed to be removed to confirm this and for plasterboard to be cut back so that it was not in contact with the floor.
The landlord confirmed an instruction to its contractor on 1 April 2022. The works were:
1. For plastering with a commencement date of 28 April 2022
2. Condensation treatment with a start date of 4 May 2022
During this investigation the resident informed this Service that damp and mould was still present throughout the property. She said:
1. That the walls were constantly wet and have holes in them.
2. She and her son had received electric shocks from the sockets.
3. She was constantly throwing items away.
4. Her son’s bed had mould on it and she had to throw away her son’s school uniform as it was covered in mould.
5. Condensation units had been installed but this had not resolved the problem. This had caused increased energy bills which were now unaffordable.
6. She still did not have full access to her living room.
7. She did not feel that she was being updated as promised in the stage 2 complaint response.
8. Throughout 2022 appointments continued to be booked and cancelled or moved.
9. On 13 July 2022 the landlord offered the resident an alternative property. The resident said she had declined the property as it sat directly above an underground station which would present a number of problems for her son due to his sensory needs. The resident said that the property also had a damp issue.
10. On 2 August 2022 a further property was offered to the resident. The resident declined this offer as the property was in a heavy traffic area and the door in the child’s bedroom led directly outside to the street. This presented a safety issue for her son as he had no awareness of danger and would be able to exit the door into the street.
11. On 3 April 2023 a third offer was made and rejected as it had no garden and was not like for like. The resident said she felt that her son’s medical needs had not been taken into consideration when making the offers. She said that her preference would be to remain in her current home with all the issues resolved.
12. A new contractor had now been appointed and was undertaking works in her home. Her son was having to stay with relatives whilst the work was being undertaken due to the disruption.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinions, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

This Service empathises with the considerable period the resident and her son have been living with damp and mould in their home. This was particularly distressing for the resident’s son due to his autism and sensory needs. This Service also empathises with the resident’s concerns about her and her son’s health, being daily inhaler users for asthma, and the affects that damp and mould may have had.
There was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property as:
1. In this Service’s damp and mould spotlight report it recommends that landlords adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. Landlords should ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed. Landlords should identify where an independent qualified surveyor should be used and share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner. However, in this case:
  1. The landlord repeatedly inspected the property, took photographs and brought in numerous contractors without carrying out recommended works in a timely manner.
  2. The landlord was aware of the issues with the flat roof in July 2020. It was inspected and measured multiple times before repairs were finally completed in November 2021. This had caused the damp and mould issues to worsen over a period of 16 months. The landlord’s contractor said in his report of 17 March 2022 that the roof was still leaking during heavy rain.
  3. The back door installed on 1 July 2020 was reported as ill-fitting and having gaps by the resident on 3 July 2020. This was repeatedly inspected, and the landlord acknowledged that the contractor had not provided the quality service that the landlord had expected. Repeated attempts to repair the door were made which led to further deterioration and exposure of the brickwork. The resident advised this Service that a new door was installed on 22 May 2022, 22 months after the landlord was aware of the issue.
2. The landlord’s contractor provided a report in March 2022 with its recommendations. It is not clear whether the landlord has completed all the work recommended by its contractor.
3. There is no evidence that the landlord considered its obligations under HHSRS and any risks to the resident and her son.
4. The resident has lived in her home since June 2020 without being able to put down carpets or have full use and enjoyment of her property. Being unable to put down carpets caused further detriment to her son due to his sensory needs.
5. The resident provided the landlord with detailed medical information for herself and her son. Records show that the resident had informed the landlord how the delays were impacting on her and her son’s health. The landlord’s offers of alternative accommodation did not consider the resident’s son’s requirements. It is also noted that despite the landlord being aware of the resident and her son’s vulnerabilities its records have not been properly updated. It failed to consider the impact on the resident and her son.
6. It was unable to confirm when the resident had first reported the issues or whether the contractors who had visited were damp specialists.
It is not disputed that the landlord failed to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould in a timely manner. In its stage 2 response it apologised for its mistakes, poor communication, failure to liaise efficiently between departments, for its record keeping and acknowledged that it should have progressed repairs more quickly.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation, offer to carry out surveys and commitment to carry out necessary work) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service takes into account whether the landlord’s offer to redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s stage 2 acknowledged its failures:
1. It apologised for the failed appointment in November 2021 and offered £30 compensation. However, it did not acknowledge any other failed appointments.
2. It offered compensation of £1886.22 for the limited use of the living room due to the resident having to move her belongings from the basement. This was calculated at 20% of the daily rent from October 2020 when the resident reported the issues to this Service, to the date of its stage 2 response. The landlord did not however acknowledge the resident’s previous reports from June 2020 up to October 2020. The resident advised this Service that she still does not have full use of her living room.
3. It acknowledged that the door repair should have been undertaken sooner and offered £250 for its service failure. However, it failed to provide a date by when the door would be replaced. It took a further 3 months for the door to be replaced.
4. It acknowledged that the resident had been waiting for a long time for the repairs to be carried out and that its communication had been poor. It offered £250 for its poor communication.
5. It acknowledged that its record keeping was not sufficient to say when the resident had first reported the issues and if the contractors sent were damp specialists. It said it was working on a process to improve its record keeping.
6. It promised to communicate weekly with the resident, however, the resident advised this Service that this did not happen.
7. The landlord’s compensation offer was £2666.22.
8. The landlord advised the resident to contact her own insurance provider for assistance with damage to her personal belongings. However, the landlord should have considered whether the resident had insurance cover and should also have considered its own insurance as the loss was as a result of it failing to meet its obligations to the resident.
The compensation offered to the resident was not proportionate to the delays and failures demonstrated by the landlord. It does not compensate for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her son from the date of moving into the property or that works remain outstanding.
Therefore, this Service considers that the landlord’s response was not appropriate or proportionate to the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident and that the landlord has not made redress to the resident, which in this Service’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint as:
1. It failed on three occasions to raise the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process as requested by this Service. This Service, on behalf of the resident, asked for the complaint to be raised on 25 October 2020. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 26 April 2021. (126 working days after the request was made and 116 days outside of the landlord’s complaint policy timescales).
2. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it needed to ensure that complaints were acknowledged and responded to within 10 working days. However, it did not apologise for its failure to raise the resident’s complaint on three separate occasions of for the time taken to respond.
3. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 6 December 2021. The landlord responded on 11 February 2022, 46 working days after the complaint was escalated and 26 days outside of the landlord’s complaints policy timescales.
4. The landlord did apologise for its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process and offered £250 as a gesture of good will. The £250 was therefore not proportionate to the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
Therefore, the landlord has not made redress to the resident, which in this Service’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in resolving the damp and mould issues in the resident’s home.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay directly to the resident a total of £9,201.32 in compensation. The compensation comprises:
1. £2,666.22 previously offered if not already paid.
2. A further £3285.10 for the delays in completing the repairs and the associated impact on the property.
3. £3000 for distress and inconvenience caused and not taking into account the vulnerabilities of the resident and her son.
4. A further £250 for the time and trouble the resident incurred in contacting this Service to raise her complaints and for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
5. The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to reconsider the resident’s request for compensation, for the damage to her belongings.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report, in person (or in writing if preferred by the resident).
2. Notwithstanding the works currently being undertaken at the resident’s home, the landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this determination to inspect the property to:
  1. Establish whether further works will be required to address the ongoing damp and mould at the property. If so, within a further two weeks, confirm in writing to the resident and this Service what works will be carried out and the target date for these to be completed.
  2. Establish whether, having regard to the resident and her son’s vulnerabilities, the condition of the property and the extent of the work required are such that the resident needs to be decanted from the property on a temporary basis.
3. Confirm to the resident and this Service:
  1. what measures it will be putting in place going forward to monitor the proposed work to remedy the damp and mould in the property.
  2. How the resident is to report any further problems with damp and mould to the landlord.
  3. What actions the landlord will take to alleviate the resident’s living conditions while the works are carried out.
  4. Whether all of the recommended works from the contractor’s report of March 2022 have been completed. For any recommended repairs which remain outstanding provide a completion date within 4 weeks of this report.
  5. When the rotten windows will be replaced.
4. The landlord is ordered to carry out a full senior management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. The review is to include its complaint handling failures to ensure that complaints are acknowledged and responded to in line with its complaints policy.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its procedures in relation to resident’s vulnerabilities. In doing so, demonstrate how it will actively use its vulnerability information to provide any additional support that may be required.
The landlord should review its damp and mould procedures to ensure there is an effective mechanism in place to record and store surveyor and other specialist reports. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould.